Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY CIVIL CASE (First Request) LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff Hans Menos ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, Don L. Taylor, L. John Lewis, S. Randall Oveson and
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY CIVIL CASE (First Request) LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff Hans Menos ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, Don L. Taylor, L. John Lewis, S. Randall Oveson and ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY CIVIL CASE
(First Request)
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2, LR 7-1, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff Hans Menos ("Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel the law firms of Leverty & Associates Law Chtd. Ltd. and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Defendants Jeffery L. Taylor, Don L. Taylor, L. John Lewis, S. Randall Oveson and Gannon Giguiere (collectively, "Individual Defendants") and Nominal Defendant Eco Science Solutions, Inc. ("Nominal Defendant" and with Individual Defendants, "Defendants"), by and through their counsel, the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, hereby stipulate and agree that due to the criminal indictment against Defendant Gannon Giguiere, U.S.A. v. Giguiere, et al., Case No. 18-CR-3071-WQH (S.D.Cal.) (the "Criminal Indictment"):
(1) The February 11, 2019 deadline for Defendants' response to the Verified First Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint ("Amended Complaint") (Dkt. No. 49) is vacated and Defendants do not need to respond to the Amended Complaint until the stay issue is resolved in the related derivative actions, Bell v. Taylor, et al., Case No. 17-cv-00530 (D. Hawaii) and D'Annunzio v. Taylor, et al., Case No. 18-cv-00016 (D. Hawaii) (the "Hawaii Actions")1; and
(2) Plaintiff's response to the Emergency Motion to Stay Civil Case ("Stay Motion") (Dkt. No. 52) is held in abeyance until Judge Kobayashi makes a determination on Defendants' motions to stay the Hawaii Actions. If Judge Kobayashi denies Defendants' motions to stay in the Hawaii Actions, then Defendants shall withdraw their Stay Motion in this action and stipulate to a deadline for Defendants' response to the Amended Complaint. If Judge Kobayashi grants Defendants' motions to stay in the Hawaii Actions, then the Parties will enter into stay with similar terms as the stay entered in the Hawaii Actions.
The Parties will promptly notify the Court with any decisions and deadlines entered in the Hawaii Actions. This is the first stipulation requesting a new schedule for the response to the Amended Complaint due to the Criminal Indictment and for Plaintiff's response to the Stay Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
